Salleh Abas LP:

Each of us has a separate judgment. My judgment is complementary of that of my learned brother Tan Sri Dato E. Abdoolcader, with whom I agree.

This is an appeal from the decision of Harun J dismissing the appellant's application to set aside an ex parte order given by the Chief Justice allowing for the taking of evidence before the High Court upon a letter of request issued by Hongkong High Court; such evidence to be used in a criminal proceeding pending in Hongkong and the evidence is to be recorded before Harun J himself.

The appellant is one of the accused who are subject to the criminal proceedings in Hongkong. Another person is Lorrain Esme Osman. He was not a party to the proceeding to set aside the ex parte order before Harun J. Upon application by his Counsel to intervene in this appeal we allowed his application in terms of prayer one of his Notice of Motion only.

The impugned ex parte order was made under the provision of O. 66 r. 1 of the Rules of the High Court 1980.

Mr. R.R. Sethu for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is bad and must be set aside because, firstly O. 66 r. 1 does not apply to a matter in relation to criminal pr